By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In response to the recent Bondi Beach terrorist attack, NSW Police have banned public assemblies for two weeks in specific areas of Sydney. This action was taken after the NSW Police Commissioner activated new powers granted by recently passed legislation. The legislation, which was passed in the wake of the attack, allows the Commissioner to designate areas as “restricted” following a declared terrorist incident. The ban means any gatherings in the specified areas are unauthorized and any previously approved events have been revoked.
Read the original article here
Public assemblies banned for 14 days across Sydney as police enforce new powers under protest laws is the headline, and it’s a stark one. The decision, following the tragic Bondi Beach shooting, has raised a lot of eyebrows, and it’s easy to see why. The right to gather and protest is a cornerstone of any democracy, and to see it temporarily curtailed, especially in response to an event that didn’t even originate from a protest, certainly sparks concerns about the balance between security and civil liberties. It’s a tricky line to walk, no doubt.
The timing of this ban is particularly interesting, or perhaps, problematic, given that it coincides with the holiday season. The cancellation of public events, like the New Year’s Eve celebrations, undoubtedly dampens the festive spirit and impacts the sense of community. The fear is palpable, and the authorities’ response is understandable. The goal, clearly, is to prevent any further potential incidents and to allow law enforcement to focus on investigations, potentially tracking down any more terrorist cells in the country. The question remains, however: Is this the most effective way to address the issue?
Critics are quick to point out that this measure seems to punish the many for the actions of a few. While some would argue that a temporary ban promotes public safety, others see it as an overreach, a knee-jerk reaction that may not be proportionate to the actual threat. The question of whether this response actually helps to combat terrorism, or potentially makes it worse, is a central point of contention.
There’s also the underlying fear that this could set a precedent. The powers granted to the police commissioner are significant, allowing for the designation of restricted areas following a terrorist incident. Where does it end? What’s the threshold for future restrictions? When we start limiting fundamental rights in the name of security, we enter a precarious territory. It’s an issue that touches on the very foundations of a free society.
The debate over the importance of freedom of assembly itself is also critical. Is it a right to be taken for granted, or is it a privilege that can be readily suspended? It is, after all, enshrined in international human rights treaties that Australia is a party to. But even in a democracy with a strong history of such rights, like Australia, there are questions on how firmly these rights are defended.
Some perspectives bring up other historical events, such as the Cronulla race riots, implying that tensions exist, and that certain groups, given the opportunity, would amplify those tensions. While this may be a valid point, it should be weighed carefully against the need to protect the right to peaceful assembly for all.
Furthermore, it’s worth noting the argument that a two-week ban, specifically following a terrorist attack, might be reasonable from a public safety standpoint. In the wake of such a tragedy, allowing a period of calm and investigation can be seen as sensible. But again, it raises the concern of what the justification might be for future incidents. Where does it end?
It is difficult to determine whether these restrictions are truly effective in countering terrorism. The ban, as it stands, seems to address the immediate aftermath of the tragedy, but whether it ultimately fosters long-term security remains to be seen. The core issue lies in balancing necessary security measures with the fundamental freedoms that define a democratic society. It’s a complex situation without a clear and easy solution.